GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) holdings & weights
Per-holding contribution · concentration · sector skew — a deep read
Fund overview
This is a US-listed ETF from GMO. Key facts — expense ratio 0.5%; net assets about $5.5B; inception Nov 13, 2023. Its 1-year return is +20.76%.
Fund details
Fund overview
This is a US-listed ETF from GMO. Key facts — expense ratio 0.5%; net assets about $5.5B; inception Nov 13, 2023. Its 1-year return is +20.76%.
25 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 79.71%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
Weight and calculation basis
25 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 79.71%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
We have this ETF's holdings, but the prices for those particular listings are outside our quote coverage (currently Korea- and US-listed securities). So today's contribution and return are not computed — showing 0% would claim it did not move, which is a different statement. The holdings and weights below follow the calculation basis above.
Today's summary
Its top 10 holdings make up about 57.8% of the fund. The concentration index (HHI) is 480 — Low — evenly diversified, and the largest sector is Information Technology (40%). The higher the concentration, the more one stock or sector drives the whole ETF's return.
Structural health
A five-axis read on how this fund is built. It is not a return forecast or a recommendation, and a low score does not mean a bad fund — leveraged products score low by design. Each axis shows the figure behind it.
Concentration is below 1,500 (480), so no single holding dominates.
Information Technology is 40%, a clear tilt. That industry's swings will drive the fund.
0.5% a year is typical. Held ten years, roughly 5.0% goes to fees.
Net assets of $5.5B — liquid enough to trade, and unlikely to be wound down.
A plain 1x physical fund holding the shares themselves — no structural drift from how long you hold it.
Concentration and diversification
Structural health
A five-axis read on how this fund is built. It is not a return forecast or a recommendation, and a low score does not mean a bad fund — leveraged products score low by design. Each axis shows the figure behind it.
Concentration is below 1,500 (480), so no single holding dominates.
Information Technology is 40%, a clear tilt. That industry's swings will drive the fund.
0.5% a year is typical. Held ten years, roughly 5.0% goes to fees.
Net assets of $5.5B — liquid enough to trade, and unlikely to be wound down.
A plain 1x physical fund holding the shares themselves — no structural drift from how long you hold it.
Top 20 holdings
Weights are normalized to 100% of absolute exposures across analysed positions, including positions outside this top list. Cash, collateral and unverified assets are excluded. Contributions retain original signed NAV exposures; leverage is not applied twice.
Normalized to 100% of analysed positions
Weights are normalized to 100% of absolute exposures across analysed positions, including positions outside this top list. Cash, collateral and unverified assets are excluded. Contributions retain original signed NAV exposures; leverage is not applied twice.
| # | Holding | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | MicrosoftMSFT | 9.89% |
| 2 | AlphabetGOOGL | 6.19% |
| 3 | AppleAAPL | 6.00% |
| 4 | Meta PlatformsMETA | 5.98% |
| 5 | Thermo Fisher ScientificTMO | 5.67% |
| 6 | Johnson & JohnsonJNJ | 5.48% |
| 7 | Lam ResearchLRCX | 5.24% |
| 8 | Texas InstrumentsTXN | 4.57% |
| 9 | BroadcomAVGO | 4.44% |
| 10 | Amazon.comAMZN | 4.35% |
| 11 | NVIDIANVDA | 3.99% |
| 12 | VisaV | 3.44% |
| 13 | KLAKLAC | 3.36% |
| 14 | Eli Lilly andLLY | 3.17% |
| 15 | UnitedHealthUNH | 2.99% |
| 16 | MastercardMA | 2.96% |
| 17 | Abbott LaboratoriesABT | 2.89% |
| 18 | NetflixNFLX | 2.77% |
| 19 | AramarkARMK | 2.73% |
| 20 | SalesforceCRM | 2.65% |
Holdings below 0.5% or outside the top list are folded into “Others” and omitted above.
Where the weight sits — sector mix
Listed equity weights summed by sector and normalized to 100%. Each band is one sector's share.
Industry breakdown
HHI sums the squared weights. The more it leans on a few names, the higher it goes — and the more the whole ETF moves with them.
How concentrated is it
Concentration (HHI) is low at 480, with the top 10 holdings at just 57.8% of equity weight. No single name can dominate the fund.
Good for damping single-stock risk — and equally, a big winner inside gets diluted.
HHI squares each weight and sums them: 10,000 means one stock is everything, and the more evenly spread the holdings, the closer it falls to zero.
Where the sector weight sits
Sector weights run Information Technology(40%) · Health Care(20%) · Communication Services(15%). At 40%, the leading sector is a clear tilt.
Expect it to ride that industry's cycle — ahead of the index in good stretches, behind in bad ones.
Weights above sum the individually listed equities and normalize that equity total to 100%.
How much it overlaps others
It shares 52% of its holdings with HAPI (15 names in common) — close to half the same companies.
Own both and the diversification is thinner than it looks.
What it is made of
The fund holds 48 positions in total; this page lists the largest 25 and folds the rest into "Others".
Equities are 79.7% of the fund, the rest swaps and cash — index exposure built synthetically rather than by owning the shares, which adds counterparty risk.
The expense ratio is 0.5% a year, which is not cheap. Fees come out of returns every year you hold, so it is worth checking whether the same index is available for less.
This page is not investment advice. Investment decisions and responsibility are your own.
QLTY comments
Leave a one-line take on GMO U.S. Quality ETF. No account — just a nickname and a code to delete it later.
Loading…
Similar ETFs
Picked by how much their actual holdings overlap. The higher the overlap, the less diversification you get from owning both.